May 24, 2011

"He lost his job not too long after my mom died for a while and he got promoted later to dispatcher. My brothers and sisters couldn't go to college, not because they didn't have the capability, they just didn't have the opportunity. And I've lived the American dream, and through hard work and a lot of other help and a loving family and many other things, but when you share that story, I know when people say, 'Hey, you Republicans, you don't know what it's like not to be able to afford gas in your car or pay your health care or worry about college costs or how you're even gonna pay the mortgage,' I said, 'Yeah, I can, because I've walked in your shoes,' and that gives me the chance then to convince them why being a conservative, why joining our team is better, 'cause they just don't stiff arm us right out of the gate."

It's Pawlenty. Without looking. but I did read his Wiki page last evening before retiring. Without Huckabee in the race I had to find another candidate, and it looks like it's Pawlenty. This paragraph is from his Wiki page. I think Pawlenty has all the positions I'm looking for in a candidate. I'm not sure if he has the charisma that the One has, but if he sticks to telling his truth, and not caving into the secular left, he will still win based purely on his having a better understanding of what's needed to cut the 13 trillion deficit that BO has created.

The interview did raise my opinion of him somewhat, but he still is enormously charisma-challenged.

Part of that might be natural, part of it might be the fact that in his public interviews he seems to always follow the politician template, which is evidence of overhandling by the "professional" advisers, the same elite know-it-alls that give us the same bland losers every election cycle.

Would that, instead of mimicking the mannerisms of "his friend" the Weasel (aka Mitt Romney), spouting off his resume and life-story in politician-speak, he was more shoot-from-the-hip and told us in stark terms what needs to be done, like the guy who was interviewing him.

Would that, instead of mimicking the mannerisms of "his friend" the Weasel (aka Mitt Romney), spouting off his resume and life-story in politician-speak, he was more shoot-from-the-hip and told us in stark terms what needs to be done, like the guy who was interviewing him.

Actually if you've been paying attention, Pawlenty has done plenty of that. But he hasn't been getting the front page attention because his name recognition is low outside of political junkies.

That's why he has to do "the politician" thing: he needs to start by introducing himself. When you first meet someone socially, do you start off by tackling the tough issues of the day in your first sentence or do you "warm up your audience" with a little background/small talk first?

People have to first feel comfortable with the messenger before they'll listen to the message. And Pawlenty needs to define HIMSELF before the media does the job for him. After the inevitable "he's a Republican, so he's out of touch" hit jobs that everyone knows is coming, it will be too late to tell people about his roots.

Well, I'll give him a listen, but I've heard enough of the self-congratulatory pats on the back. What he's done in the past is a matter of record. I can look that stuff up. But I'm not going to go looking to see if he has a pair. He has to demonstrate that himself.

He says he was a hockey player? Well let's start seeing some of that. The "hockey mom" does not need to be the only one out there who is tough.

It might be, largely because establishment-elitist Republicans detest her and would prefer Obama to her, that Palin cannot win, but if we want to win and want to end this insane project of national suicide, then it is imperative that we have someone who is Palinesque.

Speaking of unknown MN candidates and candidates conservatives would wish to remain unknown lol I didn't know George McGovern was a WWII war hero until about ten years ago.

Yes Virginia, he flew 35 missions over enemy territory, but was too humble to exploit his war record for political gain. Of course, this knowledge would have made little difference re: Nixon's '72 landslide as the Dems were imploding at the time and McGovern had screwed up his v-p pick.

And speaking of screwed up vp picks, McCain didn't really talk that much about his Vietnam POW experience, following the tradition of WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam veterans not really wanting to talk about their war experiences and being a hero of any kind.

Can one imagine if mittens or any of his sons had served. We'd be hearing about it non-stop. But alas :-P mittens is a war pacifier.

>

Again, the Reps conundrum ie who looks more presidential er electable by default, mittens or Pawlenty. Although a close call, my $$$ is still on mittens.

Can one imagine if mittens or any of his sons had served. We'd be hearing about it non-stop. But alas :-P mittens is a war pacifier.

Not discussing combat experiences with people that haven't been in combat transcends those particular wars you mentioned. It's as true today as it was after the Civil War. If Romney had served in combat, he would be a different person by definition. You claim that we'd be hearing about it non-stop is completely without basis.

On the other hand, a prominent democrat DIDN'T serve in combat, or even the theater of combat, but has "mispoke" several times claiming that he did.

How is it irrelevant? He didn't even serve the way he claimed and yet bandied about on multiple occasions. Fits right in with what you claim Romney would do. Explain, please, how that's irrelevant. Given your claim.

It's Pawlenty on The Limbaugh. I didn't hear one word from him on he was going to reduce regulation and taxes. I heard he was going to do it, just not how. All I heard was American Dream. Yeah, well, Urkel is choking the life out of it.

I'm not asking that any politician send me into the heights of ecstasy with charisma, but is it too much to ask that we have someone who does not so readily lend himself to the name of Yawnlenty?

A little passion and fight does not merely inspire the troops, it also suggests some level of that element that our betters keep saying someone needs -- "gravitas." We don't need someone whose mannerisms are so lacking in weight that he floats away.

The election will be about Obama. His policies have been atrocious. Young people who are now unemployed are no longer inspired by him. Pawlenty is a plausible alternative who can attract independents and soft Democrats. There is no savior on the horizon.

Also, it would help if the person who is elected President could actually do the job. The more charasmatic Republican candidates would be pretty bad Presidents (Bachmann, Cain, and Palin if she runs).

We will have had 12 years of that. We can't afford anymore. So instead of just looking who can rile up voters, think about who can be effective at fixing the huge hole that bad policies and politicians have put us in.

Anyway, I'm not very interested in charisma. Like someone else on here said, if they're competent, they don't need it. And I want someone who seems competent. Pawlenty seems competent. Obama's charisma has gotten us precisely nowhere, so I'm not sure how much it really helps. In an election? Maybe. But I wonder if voters will buy it a second time from Obama. I suspect not.

I didn't know George McGovern was a WWII war hero until about ten years agoI knew that in 1972 when I was 11. He didn't milk it like McCain, but it was well known. It didn't help his surrender-in-VN campaign (so it's curious Dems thought Kerry was best in 2004). US bomber crew fatality rates were nearly as bad as German Uboat crews', IIRC, which were about 1 in 2.

We will have had 12 years of thatYou mean 24 years. Do you think Clinton held down spending (neither Bush did, either)? The very first thing he pushed was a $40 billion payoff to big cities/unions, thankfully filibustered. Remember "The Incredible Shrinking President" 5 months into his first term?

I agree Clinton's first 2 years were bad. His last 6 were good. The tax increases he pushed through his first 2 years combined with Republicans control of spending the last 6 made for a good deal fiscally.

I thought George H.W. Bush was a good President. He started reining in Reagan's deficits, which as a percent of GDP were slightly higher than FDR's first 8 years (March '33 through March 41). Clinton and the first Bush were fiscally responsible, especially since they had to work with a Congress of the other party.

W. and Obama are fiscal disasters, especially when Congress was also controlled by their party.

Interestingly, Reagan is the only President to run huge deficits while the other party controlled at least half, and then all of Congress. For Dems to decry Reagan's deficits is a bit weak. They were as much at fault as he was.

Hopefully with Republican's controlling the House and Obama in the WH the next 18 months, something can be done to get the deficits down.

The problem with TPAW is why should anyone vote for him over Mitt or Obama? Republicans always love these solid, down-to-earth, no-nonsense, isn't flashy - just gets the job done, won't the rock the boat, respectable, Politicians.

Except they don't win POTUS elections and they don't excite poor and working class people who actually, y'know vote. People want that "vision Thing".

But Republicans just can't understand that, because, hey everything's great - except for that man in the White House- and those HIGH Capital gains taxes.

But does it matter? Mitt's a lock at this point. He's the Republicans dream man, he's Jerry Ford - Part II.

And of course Reagan was "literally" out of central casting. Die hard Reps who came of age during Reagan were spoiled ie a Rep w/a pulse er personality, something Bush/Bush, Ford, Nixon and even Ike lacked.

Again, as always, elections come down to choices er the lesser of (2) evils. The main reason I think mittens will prevail over Pawlenty is he looks more presidential er more electable comparatively speaking. Reps, as a rule, pick the candidate who is more electable.

George H.W. Bush signed off on the 1990 tax increase because of the spending and tax rates Reagan put in. (Also, H.W. had to bail out the S&Ls. So he signed the 1989 FIRREA and spent more. Apparently his predecessor believed that the banks could regulate themselves. He was wrong).

Anyway, H.W. acknowledged that tax cuts don't pay for themselves at the level of taxation the U.S. was at so he signed the 1990 tax increases. This violated the "read my lips no taxes pledge" but it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. Clinton raised them a few years later.

Anyway, since the economic "boom" of the 1990s occurred years after Reagan left office and after the Clinton 1993 tax hikes, it would be pure speculation to say that Reagan "caused" it. Also, the capital gains rate was raised in 1987 from 20 to 28% where it basically stood until it was lowered to 21% in 1997.

I guess you don't consider the tax hikes H.W. put in to be a "reigning in" of deficits, but since spending has never gone down, it's really the only way to close deficit gap.

As far as Reagan's deficits, although they generally increased in absolute numbers, as a percent of GDP they went down after FY 1983 (which had a 6% deficit as percent of GDP) as the economy recovered (Overall, Reagan did a good job as President. But his deficit spending, with help from Dem Congress, has been a problem we still have to live with. The same with Obama's and W.'s (and to a much lesser extent W.'s and Clintons).

Hopefully we can get spending cuts and tax increases to get the fiscal crisis we face under control. The best plan would be to lower the nominal tax rates and phase out or eliminate all the itemized deductions and exemptions. That way politicians can claim we had a "tax cut" while we increase revenues.

The reason to favor Pawlenty over Romney or Obama is he didn't enact a health care law that Massachusetts and the country can't afford. Pawlenty also vetoed a lot of bills. He will not increase government spending. Both Mitt and Obama love to increase spending.

Also, Pawlenty's the tallest of the three. And his wife is the prettiest, by far. That goes a long way. The guy must be doing something right if a hot woman like that wanted him. Let's not forget the 1st lady is on TV all the time, so it would be nice to get a MILF in there for once.

If that's not enough for you two, then Obama or Romney are for you.

Personally, I think both of those guys are dorks. Obama's first pitch in the 2009 All-Star game was pure pussy. This is the fucking American past-time. Obama throws like a 6-year-old girl. And did he borrow his wife's jeans? Anyone who thinks Obama is cool or charismatic is fucking insane. Romney's VO5 hairstyle is straight out of a '40s flick. Plus both Obama and Romney are very arrogant. Given their incompetence at governing, this is too much to take.

If I wanted someone cool as President, I'd vote for Clint Eastwood or Tom Brady. Since those guys aren't running, Pawlenty will do.

Bottom line, Pawlenty is gonna have to sell himself to the Rep voters and he doesn't strike me as a very good used car salesman, whereas mittens got elected in liberal MA, which ironically will work against him in the Rep primary, but at least mittens has some crossover appeal. Pawlenty, not so much.

Of course, there is such a concept of being soooo wishy/washy er a dynamic flip/flipper that you appeal to nobody! ;)

Yes, Romney won in liberal Massachusetts, but he's flip-flopped on most of the positions he took when he was trying to appeal to a more liberal voter pool.

The GOP nomination process is a pretty good way to tell if Pawlenty can appeal to voters nationwide. I think Romney failed that test in 2008, and I see little reason to think that something has changed about him -- or the electorate -- since then.

If Romney had the ability to connect with voters, he'd be in the White House right now.

I think Pawlenty takes the nomination, unless some charismatic savior rides in at the last minute.

I guess you don't consider the tax hikes H.W. put in to be a "reigning in" of deficits, but since spending has never gone down, it's really the only way to close deficit gap.Except that it didn't close the gap--Congress just spent more. Bush let spending rise (faster) *before* he signed onto the tax increase. He was and is a liberal Republican, who allegedly ate a pork rind.

I don't quite know what to make of the idea that Pawlenty isn't conservative enough. Ask a Minnesota liberal, and they'll confirm that Pawlenty is a real conservative. Certainly his track record is more solidly conservative that Romney's.

Pawlenty's critics on the right seem to object to the fact that his rhetoric isn't inflammatory and that he comes across looking like a reasonable fellow. These aren't negative attributes -- these are what it takes to win a general election.

Right now, I've got to say that I like Pawlenty's chances. He's the credible guy not named Romney. And with Christie and Daniels bowing out, that leaves few credible guys not named Romney. (Cain, Gingrich, and Paul aren't going to figure into the outcome. Who'd I forget? Yeah, Johnson isn't going to matter, either.)

But if Bachmann, Palin, or Perry enters the race, I think Pawlenty is going to have trouble.

After McCain won the 2008 NH primary 37/31 the Rep hierarchy coalesced behind McCain as he was deemed the most electable Rep candidate ie McCain received several high ranking Rep endorsements including Martinez FL which helped him win the winner take all FL primary Jan. 29 and helped McCain on Super Tuesday.

ie Reps fall in line.

I don't see Pawlenty winning IA or NH or FL or SC. But hey, somebody has to win lol.